The Robert Mann book? The Bodies? Bueller? Bueller?

Buzz,
I’m genuinely intrigued. Show me the proof of “the unbraced length of those interior columns”.

Asking for proof of something isn’t answering the question I ask:

Do you honestly think you have the knowledge necessary to evaluate the merits of any argument about why the Twin Towers collapsed?

That’s the 3rd time I’ve ask it.  Why do you avoid it, Diamonds?

A structural column is either continuously braced, braced at intervals, or unbraced for it’s entire length.  The load it can carry depends on how it’s braced.

In multi-story buildings each floor system provides the bracing for a column.  Lose the floor and you lose the bracing.  No column, no matter how large, can remain unbraced for 3 or 4 times or more times it’s designed bracing interval and withstand even a small portion of it’s intented design capacity.

Now, just how were the interior columns going to remain structurally stable with no bracing?  No floor system, no bracing, Diamonds.  When the jet hit the tower entire floors were either removed or severely damaged on that side of the building.  Neither King nor Jones addressed that point.  Why not?

King maintained that the interior core should have remained standing.  What he’s saying is that the building core was a complete structural system within itself.  That’s not true.  The interior core had to rely on the exterior wall system to transfer lateral loads to the foundation.  By itself the interior core was a structurally unstable system.

And by the way, the building in Madrid was not designed like the Twin Towers.  It wasn’t near as tall, it had a completely different type of structural system, the fireproofing wasn’t the same, and the fireproofing remained intact during the entire time it burned.  Not only that it wasn’t damaged before the fire began.  You’re comparing apples and oranges, Diamonds . . . not knowing what your taking about.

Do you even know what fireproofing is?  Often it’s just drywall, otherwise known as sheetrock or gypboard . . . the same stuff you see used for walls in home construction.  It’s made up of gypsum and other materials.  It’s heat resistant.

Now, why don’t you and your experts tell us how drywall can withstand the impact of a 767 jet aircraft going 300 to 500 mph.  Hell, you can put a hole through drywall with a damn hammer, Diamonds.  Why didn’t King or Jones mention that?

Honestly, some of this stuff is so out of your league it’s sad.  It’s like me trying to explain microbiology.  And you just don’t seem to get it.

That’s because you have proven just how intellectually dishonest you really are.

Now answer my question and I’ll do you the favor of answering your questions.

But when a 757 slams into a building and the wings come off, not damaging anything on the building just as the foam wings did, why did the main cabin pierce through many rings of the pentagon causing a large explosion and collapsing the entrance hole and killing many people. Where are these undamaged wings? Where is the damage from these wings hitting the pentagon?

I’m not wasting my breath (again).  I don’t claim to be an expert on examining plane wreckages.  Far from it.  However, unlike you I have the good sense to let far more qualified individuals weigh in on such events.  What you THINK the crash should look like is completely, totally, 150% irrelevant. 

I think I’ll just repeat what Buzz said:

Honestly, some of this stuff is so out of your league it’s sad.  It’s like me trying to explain microbiology.  And you just don’t seem to get it.

Here’s a fun game.  Tell me how many clearly discernable wing outlines you can see in these random crash photos.  I guess these are all “conspiracies” too, eh Diamonds?

http://www.payvand.com/news/05/dec/1045.html

None there.

http://www.strangedangers.com/images/content/3521.jpg

Don’t see any here, either.

http://www.indiavarta.com/gallery/images/2005/sep/5/in6.jpg

None here, either.

http://www.freedomofthought.com/images/planecrash.jpg

Can’t see any here, either.

http://www.box4.org/040101/PLANE%20CRASH%2019x.jpg

Are you beginning to get the picture, Diamond?  Your total lack of experience with plane crashes gives you no basis for comparison.  Yet you seem more than ready to arrive at the most nefarious conclusions with regards to the Pentagon crash site.  A few ramblings from discredited and unqualified psuedo-intellectual “experts”, and that’s all the proof you apparently need.  Unreal.

The vast majority of people in my profession learn early on in their career NOT to try and explain technical stuff to laymen.  I’m not as smart as they are, so let me back up and explain this.

All buildings built on land require that all loads they carry be transferred to the foundation.  How you transfer those loads depends on what type of system you design.  The WTC Towers were not typical design.  In fact, I know of no other high-rise structures that use the exterior walls as a diaphram . . . so to speak.  The Twin Towers were built like aircraft are built using stressed-skin design.  That’s important to understand.  Remove the exterior skin of an airplane and you do not have a stable system.  Lose the exterior walls of the Twin Towers and you lose the structural integrity of the structure.

As for column buckling, there is no such thing as as perfectly straight, perfectly homogenous material.  When steel is rolled it cools from the outside in.  This sets up residual stresses in the material.  Therefore, when a column is gradually loaded (axial gravity load only) at some point it will tend to buckle.  This is due to those residual stresses and the fact you cannot apply a load in a perfectly uniform manner.

Now, that column will buckle about its minor axis . . . unless it is braced at certain intervals.  Then it may buckle about its major axis . . . unless it too is braced at certain intervals.  The resistance needed to prevent buckling is very small compared to the load a column will carry.  Nevertheless, at some point during loading the mode of failure will be to buckle whether the column is braced or not.  The trick is to select the most economical section and that almost always means bracing about the minor axis is required . . . unless you have an awfully short column.

There is no practical way using math and physics to calculate the exact load when a column will buckle.  Hence, empirical data is used by the AISC to set up rules by which you design column bracing.  Thus, I have revealed the “art” part of the art of engineering.  This is the kind of stuff that generally only structural engineers know.  And that ain’t all either . . . not by a long shot.

What is clearly understood by structural engineers is that no steel column can be of indefinite length.  It has to be braced at some interval to even support itself.  That’s important to understand.

And that is exactly why you don’t hear Jones and King mention this stuff.  They don’t know what questions to ask and they don’t understand the mode of failure of structures.

And that’s what I’m saying . . . that’s the bottom line.  The people associated with this conspiracy theory are incompetents.

DiamondsAreMyFriend said:
I find it interesting that you mention the foam plane example. When the foam plane hits the door frame the wings come off, when the foam wings hit the door frame, they don’t damage the door, and when the main cabin portion of the foam plane hit’s the ground it doens’t damage the ground. But when a 757 slams into a building and the wings come off, not damaging anything on the building just as the foam wings did, why did the main cabin pierce through many rings of the pentagon causing a large explosion and collapsing the entrance hole and killing many people. Where are these undamaged wings? Where is the damage from these wings hitting the pentagon? Where are the other security tapes to shut us up?

Now try launching the same foam plane at the doorway at 500 MPH.  Are you familiar with localized weather phenomena called “tornadoes”?  Most have wind speeds at less than 200 MPH, but they can fling debris--say, a 2x2 plank of wood--that can penetrate several feet of concrete.  Yet if you were to throw this same debris at 10-20 MPH at the same building, the most damage you’d cause would be a slight ding and perhaps some slight chipping of old brick.  It’s a matter of momentum.  An airplane isn’t going to be crushed like an empty aluminum can when it hits a building.  It’s going to penetrate and do a lot of damage.

Also, when an airplane hits a building, its wings don’t just “fall off” and fall to the ground.  The wings have momentum, and they will continue moving forward.  As a result, they will crumple, they will be sheered, and they will disintegrate.  On a Boeing 757, they’re also holding fuelled engines, which means they will be blown apart.  The likelihood of finding an intact wing is close to nil.

NASA did some controlled tests in the early 1980s that demonstrate what happens when a plane encounters an “unmovable” obstacle (in this case, the ground and some “cutters").  Some videos of these tests can be found here (nasa.gov).  It’s a little disturbing to see how quickly a Boeing 720 becomes a gigantic roaring ball of flaming death.

Just, you know, an FYI.

This is kind of like getting into a fight with a dorky kid, and even after you knock out both his front teeth, break his nose, and give him two black eyes, he continues to put his head down and windmill his arms in a vain attempt to defeat you. And when you finally give up and go home, he claims that he won the fight.

Bundy. I really tried, but I’m not convinced at any of the photos. The one from Tehan doesn’t even show an entry. The Cessna is close to our foam theory as it was going very slow i imagien with no damage from the wings.

Another one from Tehran:

http://www.paktribune.com/images/newsimages/2005/12/iran-plane-crash.jpg

Still see any wing damage?  How many photos do I have to post to get you to realize that no two crashes are alike, and that your preconceived notions are completely baseless? 

--------------------

If so why would Allyn E. Kilsheimer who was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash say…

?????

Maybe I’m missing something, but Kilsheimer’s quote just entirely disproved your point.  He’s saying it was a plane, and it was an airliner.

No marks. And according to Epoch, at the speed the plane was going, the tail and wings are desentigrated.

????

Again, this is what we’ve all been trying to tell you all along. Hence the reason there was no wing damage. 

Are you even reading your quotes before you post them?

--------------------

I’m not sure if you noticed, but at the bottom of the Aerospace article I posted earlier there was an interesting statement about the supposed lack of engine wreckage.

One common question we’ve seen on sites critical of a Boeing 757 striking the Pentagon is why is there so little engine wreckage. The only identifiable engine components seen so far are the two discussed above. Since these pieces represent so little of the two large engines carried by a 757, those believing in conspiracy suggest that these small items were planted and the lack of more substantial debris is proof of a cover-up. If a 757 truly hit the Pentagon, they argue, then where is the rest of the two engines? This argument ignores the simple fact that a lack of photos of other engine parts does not mean that none existed, only that other engine components were either not photographed or the photos have not yet been released.

Interesting.

Ok Diamonds, now that we have established that you lack the necessary education to understand the technical aspects of structural engineering I feel you do have at least one honest bone in you body.

Now let me be honest.  In my profession you’re known by your integrity.  If I told you I KNOW why the Twin Towers fell I’d be lying.  I don’t know why.  And why not?

Well, I haven’t reviewed the plans or the design, I wasn’t involved in the design or construction, and I don’t have access to the information I need to make those kinds of determinations.  Not only that, but there’s only one man who was ever in charge of the design of a structure like this and he’s dead.  Like I said these were very unique structures . . . nothing else like them anywhere on the planet.

The point is this . . . no one, and I mean no one can make snap judgement about this stuff without having a whole lot of specialized education and a whole lot of information that just doesn’t exist in the general media.  And more importantly, the only people who will ever really understand this stuff are structural engineers.  The general public, like you and Jones and King and all the rest of the crowd out there promoting the demolition theory aren’t looking at the real evidence.

Look at the comments you find out there.  It couldn’t have happed like the engineers said it happened because Jones said it didn’t.  Now, how in hell do those people make that judgement?  What is it based on?

Ignorance . . . that’s what.

Now, based on my limited knowledge of the reports I’ve read coming from real structural engineers . . . real MIT professors teaching structural engineering . . . real structural engineers engaged in forensic engineering . . . real structural engineers engaged in the practice of engineering just like I used to be, then I have my own theories.  But I’m not going to sit here and tell everyone what they are.

What I am going to do is to question the very people who are questioning the real experts.

That’s the only way people will understand that they don’t know what they’re talking about . . . when they can’t answer questions that are extremely pertinent to this matter.

All I’m saying, Diamonds, is before you jump on the bandwagon here, realize your limitations.  (Like Dirty Harry said . . . a man’s gotta realize his limitations.)

And somewhere along the line you will discover there are the unlikely possibilities versus the likely probabilities.  The latter comes from all those 139,000 members of the ASCE who haven’t joined the conspriacy club.  That should tell you everything you really need to know.  The rest of it you’ll never understand unless you want to spend 5 years and a whole bunch of money getting a civil engineering degree . . . and even then you’ll need a decade of practical experience before you really get it.

Do you not at least see why people are so confused and are asking all these questions?

Diamonds, to some extent, yes I do.  But in looking for evidence, look at ALL the evidence.  That’s what lacking here.

Diamonds, the Madrid building was only 32 stories and 350 feet high.  The Twin Towers were 110 stories and 1300+ feet high.  And as I said before:

It wasn’t near as tall, it had a completely different type of structural system, the fireproofing wasn’t the same, and the fireproofing remained intact during the entire time it burned.  Not only that it wasn’t damaged before the fire began.

Buzz said:
The WTC Towers were not typical design.  In fact, I know of no other high-rise structures that use the exterior walls as a diaphram . . . so to speak.  The Twin Towers were built like aircraft are built using stressed-skin design.  That’s important to understand.  Remove the exterior skin of an airplane and you do not have a stable system.  Lose the exterior walls of the Twin Towers and you lose the structural integrity of the structure.

General question to anyone in the know:  Why was a stressed-skin design used for the Twin Towers instead of something more traditional/common?  What benefits are gained from using stressed-skin designs over other designs?

I saw this on Discovery Channel last night.  It does a good job of describing the way the towers were constructed and how fire could bring them down.  It’ll be on again on 15 September at 8:00pm and 11:00pm.
Anatomy of a Collapse: Lessons of 9/11

Diamonds,

Regarding the Tower collapsing . . . yes they were the first high-rise structures to go down . . . but I have been to several low-rise structural steel buildings that failed due to fire, and it you wouldn’t believe the mess I saw.  Structures are usually pretty forgiving, but once critical members yield, their ain’t no going back . . . gravity is then in complete command.

The problem with the argument is that no other building in history has ever suffered the huge amount of damage combined with a fire.  Remember, those jets hit the core columns.  There is no way they could have not suffered extensive damage . . . and a bent column is a weak column.  Take away the bracing and heat it up to 800 degree C and it almost impossible to believe those structures ever had a chance.

General question to anyone in the know:  Why was a stressed-skin design used for the Twin Towers instead of something more traditional/common?  What benefits are gained from using stressed-skin designs over other designs?

Lighter overall weight, less steel, less money.

Diamond, the lead engineer on the WTC project in charge of the design died a couple of years before the attack.

Here’s a quote from an article in Engineering New Record.  It shows you how extensive the impact damage was.

The team determined that the initial hits destroyed 33 of 59 perimeter columns in the north face of One WTC and 29 of 59 perimeter columns in the south face of Two WTC. Computer analysis showed that the impact of the planes also destroyed or disabled some 20 of 47 columns in the center of the core of One WTC and some five of 47 columns in the southeast corner of the core of Two WTC.

I forgot to show the link.  It’s below.  Also, as you read the article there are two links that show the mode of failure.  The last one is pretty good.

Engineering News Record

At the end of the day, it solves nothing really.

Whatever happened to having an “open mind”?  Thanks for wasting everyone’s time.

“It” solves almost everything.  You just have to be willing to lay down your conspiratorial blinders. 

We are going to see a lot of incredibly scary stuff occur over the next few years. First of which will be another major attack on Western soil. Likely within the coming months.

Sadly, this is the *only* thing you’ve written thus far that I agree with.  Yet when the next attack occurs, the culrpits will undoubtedly be the same murderers who perpetrated the ‘93 WTC attacks, the Khobar Towers attacks, the Nairobi Embassy attacks, the USS Cole incident, and 9/11, etc, etc, etc...that’d be the adherents of the “religion of peace and tolerance”, in case you were wondering, Diamonds.

Diamonds,

First, let me say you surprised a lot of us (at least me) by actually coming back to defend your points.  We still disagree with you, but at least we’re having a debate.

I honestly never bought the ‘squibs’ coming out from the building.

Are you talking about the puffs of smoke/debris that shoot out laterally from the WTC towers?  If so, I think you’re the first conspiracy theorist to not use that as your central argument.  Better watch out, you’ll get kicked out of the club :)

Continuing on the “squibs” as you call them, I haven’t looked at this, but has anyone looked at videos from a controlled implosion and seen the same type of horizontal “puffs of smoke”?  If not, that means controlled implosions don’t exhibit that characteristic, while the WTC towers did.  Therefore there is some other explanation for the WTC towers, such as the pancaking floors compressing air on the floors below.  If controlled implosions do exhibit the horizontal puffs of smoke, what is the sequence?  Do they start from the ground and go up, or vice versa, or all at once?  And what is the sequence of puffs in the WTCs collapses?  I would think the sequencing of them would be critical. 

Diamons, re: The Pentagon, you keep asking where the imprints of the wings are.  Indeed, on the WTC towers, there are imprints of the wings and engines.  Did you ever consider the construction of the two buildings’ exteriors being completely different? The Pentagon was thick reinforced concrete - the WTCs were aluminum and glass.  I would expect the wings to disintegrate as they hit the Pentagon.

Lastly, you suggest one motivation for imploding WTC7 was that it held corporate fraud documents.  It I was holding corporate fraud documents, I’d personally be standing at the shredder making sure each one was completely destroyed.  I would not let the building that contained them be imploded.  Did you see all the papers flying around before and after the WTC towers collapsed?  Buildings collapsing != a good way to destroy documents.  I’d be too worried someone would find those documents in the rubble.  With shredding (the simplest explanation, see also “Occam’s Razor”), there would be no worry.

Diamonds-

Forgot to answer your post direct to me.  You ask two things:

1) Something about witnesses in the basement of the WTC seeing shit explode around them.

If they say they saw this, fine.  Link?  You suggest the WTC towers collapse was a controlled implosion; do those usually start by firebombing the basement?

2) WTC7.  Wikipedia says:

collapse was due primarily to fires on multiple stories caused by debris from the other two towers

Was the Madrid building hit by debris from other buildings? 

Now, common sense.  According to your conspiracy theories, what was the governments’ purpose on 9/11?  To cause huge loss of life and convince Americans we needed to start a war with X?  Then why implode the building after it had been completely evacuated, and not when it was still full of people?  No one gives a shit about WTC7 – why did the gov’t bother to wire it to implode, and time it for hours later?

Your theories are full of holes.

Diamonds-

Forgot to answer your post direct to me.  You ask two things:

1) Something about witnesses in the basement of the WTC seeing shit explode around them.

If they say they saw this, fine.  Link?  You suggest the WTC towers collapse was a controlled implosion; do those usually start by firebombing the basement?

2) WTC7.  Wikipedia says:

collapse was due primarily to fires on multiple stories caused by debris from the other two towers

Was the Madrid building hit by debris from other buildings first, or was it just a fire? 

Now, common sense.  According to your conspiracy theories, what was the governments’ purpose on 9/11?  To cause huge loss of life and convince Americans we needed to start a war with X?  Then why implode the building after it had been completely evacuated, and not when it was still full of people?  No one gives a shit about WTC7 - it was just some concrete and glass when it fell.  Why did the gov’t even bother to wire it to implode, and time it for hours later when it was nothing but an insurance settlement?

Your theories are full of holes.

Posted twice for effect.  Riiiiggghhhttt.

Buzz:
Does the ENR or any other non-’conspiracy’ source discuss in detail why WTC7 came down that you know of?

Diamonds,

There are countless professional and scientific articles out there analyzing this failure.  The problem is they are all far too technical for most people to understand.  As I said before, this is a highly specialized field that requires a lot of study and a lot of work to grasp.  It would take months and months for even a professional to go through all the data and analysis of this this event.  Conclusions are one thing, but how you arrive there is quite another, and the devil is in the details.

Structural Engineering Mumbo Jumbo

What you really need to understand is that no one, not me, not Jones, not King, not even the leading experts on this case will ever prove what actually happened.  The only thing that can be said about the whole mess is that there are highly likely probabilities.  All this conspiracy stuff is nothing but wishful speculation based on highly unlikely possibilities.  But what’s possible doesn’t mean it’s what actually happened.

When you weigh evidence consider the source. Some evidence is more credible that the lame stuff you see coming from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth.  That should be obvious to anyone who looks at ALL the evidence.

Diamonds says:

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

If im not mistaken, the FIRE was what caused the building to collapse.  No one ever calculated the plane to damage the fire prof insulation exposing the steel to the fire

I admit i was starting to get frustrated with Diamonds, (remindes me of a teenage girl, keeps arguing and arguing until you concede, no matter who is right).  Of course, i soon realized that many liberals argue this way, and I have been so use to up4debate’s arguments, i think I got spoiled with a grounded debate.

“As long as a liberal believes it with their heart, there is no correcting them with the truth.” - me

And I say this with respect . . . being honest with you it’s my opinion you have an unhealthy case of paranoia.  I’ve been around a while, Diamonds, and nothing I’ve ever seen convinces me our government is near as smart as you make them out to be.

I’ve been around a while, Diamonds, and nothing I’ve ever seen convinces me our government is near as smart as you make them out to be.

It’s funny how that singular sentence sums up the failure of Diamond’s arguments better than 150+ posts.

Buzz for President in ‘08?

iggy, regarding that quote . . . this is speculation on my part, but I would bet that the building was design to withstand the impact loading of jet aircraft.  As you implied that doesn’t mean it was designed to withstand the full effects of an airliner because it’s just impossible to determine how many structural memebers will be lost during that impact.

I just got home, and a lot has happened while I was gone, so there’s not much left for me to say. I notice, Diamonds that you still refuse to respond to any of the questions various posters have asked you, so I’m sure you’ll ignore this one. You keep coming up with what you think is evidence of a ridiculously complicated government conspiracy without explaining what the government has to gain. Please tell me how the government benefits from claiming that a plane, as opposed to a missile, hit the pentagon. If they wanted an excuse to begin the new American Century, why wouldn’t they just use a missile, then claim that Arab terrorists had done it? Or, why wouldn’t they just use a plane? What is gained by launching a missile into the pentagon then claiming that a plane hit it? Why go through the trouble of faking a hijacking, making a plane disappear, launching a missile into the pentagon, then telling everyone that it was the same plane that you just made disappear? That doesn’t make sense.

It has everything to do with my so-called ‘conspiracy nonsense’. The US, as it has mapped out in the NEW AMERCIAN CENTURY, is planning on global dominance, and the Middle East is crucial to that. But I agree with you, let’s no get ahead of ourselves yet.

I don’t think you understand what think tanks are or what they do. You’re basically arguing that because something was published in a journal, the military has no choice but to act on it.

The NASA videos are fantasic. But none show a major commercial jetliner hitting a building. 2 of them hit the towers on live video, creating a very large hole, in the shape of the plane. One suposedly hit the pentagon and made a hole 100 feet smaller than the wing span and left the lawn untouched and no residue of wings to see. No to mention is was the most well-protected building in Amercia. And what only after 2 hijacked planes hit the Trade Center?  Release the tapes.

None of this is true. What was protecting the Pentagon? There were pieces of the wings and the engines in the debris. There were marks from the wings on the building. The lawn was not untouched.

I honestly never bought the ‘squibs’ coming out from the building. It was the thermite that got me. But I will admit, it doesn’t seal the deal that thermite was the definite cause, not without another investigation.

The thermite thing is probably the stupidest part of the whole theory. If you wanted to destroy something and blame someone else for it, why would you use a type of explosive that no one else has? That doesn’t make sense.

I don’t expect anyone to immediately say “wow, you’re right D!” but.... the elements in place are too incredibly perfect. it raises too many incredibly important questions.

You’ll probably be waiting a very long time before anyone decides that you’re right. Something I forgot to mention when I was talking about the fact that many conspiracy theories are hard to disprove because they are internally consistent is that yours is not. You don’t have to have any direct knowledge of a subject to recognize an inconsistent theory. Not only do you keep making conclusions that don’t logically follow from your premises, you continuously contradict yourself. Even if your information was accurate your theory is illogical. Even if your logic was sound, your information is comically incorrect. Your position is ridiculous. 

Yeah, destroying docs by shredder is easier, but if there was a CP in the building, it would have to be destroyed.

I’ve been asking you this for a month. Why in the name of god would there have been a CP in WTC7?

First, let me say you surprised a lot of us (at least me) by actually coming back to defend your points.  We still disagree with you, but at least we’re having a debate.

Actually I’m going to disagree with you here. I don’t think this is a debate. Diamonds has not defended his position, he simply keeps insisting that various things are true without providing evidence to support his claims. After a claim has been overwhelmingly refuted, he simply switches claims. He never responds when people challenge his facts--well except for that one time when I challenged his claim that there was nothing to fuel the fire in WTC7, and we all know how that turned out.

If im not mistaken, the FIRE was what caused the building to collapse.  No one ever calculated the plane to damage the fire prof insulation exposing the steel to the fire

That’s my understanding as well. One of Buzz’s buddies was on Discovery the other night demonstrating the concept with a model. It might have been the same show that someone else mentioned. Somebody posted a link earlier in the week to a site where some idiot was lighting fires inside a chicken wire cage and arguing that the fact that it didn’t collapse was proof that fire can’t weaken a structure. This was basically the same thing, only it was someone who actually knew what he was doing, and an actual simulated WTC floor, etc. Most of the model was fire proofed but part of it wasn’t. The part that wasn’t weakened and bent under the weight of the load when he exposed the structure to flame.

A North American Union? That must be when the entire population of Mexico is living in Phoenix, Dallas, and Los Angeles.

The CIA/Bin Laden thing is also false. I read an article on CNN by Peter Bergen, and he claims that the CIA had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden. He’s supposed to be an expert on Bin Laden. I think he even interviewed the guy.

Here’s the actual text:
BERGEN: This is one of those things where you cannot put it out of its misery.

The story about bin Laden and the CIA—that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden—is simply a folk myth. There’s no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn’t have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn’t have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.

The real story here is the CIA didn’t really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.

Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html

The Diamonds Method: If you can’t argue about something, argue about something else.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it.

Yes, and the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was designed to handle the wind.  Let’s be realistic here, engineering on that scale is very, very hard and also imperfect, especially when building something that has never been built before.  I could provide hundreds of links to projects that have failed for one reason or another due to something that they were “designed to withstand”.

Diamonds, this comes from one of the links you posted.  Apparently, whoever wrote this stuff has a desperate need to make the Twin Towers into some kind of superstructure.  Allow me to debunk this crap.

Here’s one paragraph:

One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

As a matter of standard practice structures are not “over-engineered”.  Various structures are design with a margin of safety . . . called a safety factor.  That safety factor varies according to the structure being designed.

Whoever wrote this crap is obviously not a structural engineer.  Steel structures are designed to resist the stresses caused by a variety of factors.  What is little known by the general public is that very often the stresses encountered during the contruction of a structure can far exceed the stresses encountered during the actual use of the structure.

And in my entire 20-year career as a structural design engineer I’ve never read something more asinine than that last sentence.  My god, whoever wrote this should be dared to go stand under any structure supporting only its dead load while 90% of the support columns are removed.  Better yet, the people who believe this crap should join him.  That might just be the absolutely dumbest thing ever written.

Suffice it to say that a structure can fail long before the “support capacity” of its columns is reached.  Keep in mind that a building (and most other structures for that matter) is a structural system.  The strength of a system is somewhat defined by its weakest link.  Lose a member and loads must be redistributed to other members for the system to remain stable, otherwise you’re in failure mode.  The author of that last sentence should explain just how loads can be redistributed in a simple span floor joist which is supported by only 2 columns when 1.8 columns have been removed . . . and he should do so while standing under that joist.

This is the kind of moronic reasoning we find in conspiracy theories.  It is cleverly designed to give false impressions.  But isn’t that what disinformation is all about?

The WTC engineer was Frank DeMartini that made the statement . . .

DeMartini was a construction manager during construction.  He is an architect.  Architect hire strutural engineers to do what they cannot do, that is to design structural systems.

Hey there.  Long time lurker, first time poster.  I wanted to comment about the wing marks issue with the Pentagon.  If you look at this image:

http://pics.soohrt.org/911/pentagon4-small_750x489.jpg

you will see burn marks on the exterior wall of the building with two larger black marks spaced evenly apart on either side of the main damage area.  Looking at the marks it looks like the plane hit the building at an angle with wings cocked at a slight angle.  The two larger black areas would be where the engines would have hit.  I looked around a bit more and found this link:

http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

It breaks down the crash in scientific detail.  It also shows that the two larger black spots where indeed where the engines would have hit.  I didn’t even know the dang plane only have two engines, just guessed from the photo.  Hell, I know just a little more than nothing of planes and was able to guess from the first photo what happened that day.  Why is it so hard for some to believe that a plane actually hit the building?

Also, getting away from the planes but staying with the Pentagon… I work in Bessemer, Alabama.  There is a company here that made the blast resistant winows on the building.  Take a look at the photos taken on Sept. 11th and see how well those windows held up to the impact.  Pretty impressive.  I mention this because I saw a mention by Diamond that the plane just happened to hit a section of the building that was not finished being fortified fagainst such an event.  Well, according to the people I know at the company that manufactured the windows the work on this section was complete.  But they had only completed the work the morning of the attack.

So Diamonds, Rodriguez says there was an explosion in the basement just seconds BEFORE the first plane hit . . . just seconds later.  I have a couple of questions about this?

1.  What was that first explosion all about?  How did that explosion relate to the destruction of the tower around an hour later?  Did the tower fail from the ground up or did it fail from the top down?

2. How many seconds are “just seconds later?” One, two, three, or more?

3. Buildings, including some houses have what they call “chases”.  A chase is an equipment shaft for electrical wiring, mechanical duct work, piping, etc.  Multi-story buildings have elevator shafts.  Were the Towers constructed with continuous chases running from top to bottom of the building?

4. Fellow worker Felipe David was burned from fire coming out of an elevator shaft.  Did anyone interview David to get his version of the story? 

Some reporters have subtly warned Rodriguez to keep quiet as he could jeopardize his life. They said “You do not know who you are dealing with!” He already looked death in the face and he will probably continue to courageously tell his story. He is speaking the truth and he is speaking it for his friends. He says: “I am living on borrowed time since I probably should be dead anyway.”

William Rodriguez is the lead plaintiff in a RICO lawsuit filed against George W. (warmonger) Bush and others.

So Diamonds, the implication here is that Rodriguez’s life is in danger if he doesn’t keep his mouth shut, but meanwhile everybody on the planet knows he’s going to testify against Bush in a RICO lawsuit.  Does that make sense to you?

See, the problem here is that media articles seldom include all the facts required to be meaningful.  And this much I know from my days in the Army military police eyewitness stories seldom jive with each other. 

So just who is this Felipe David and where is he now? If there really is a Felipe David I could say there’s a conspiracy by the media to keep his story quiet because it contradicts Rodriguez, but I have absolutely nothing to base that on other than no one is telling his story.

See how this works?  It’s all about credibility.

If you can’t argue about one thing, argue about something else. Even if it’s something you tried to argue about before.

So here’s the main idea of the article:

Rodriguez claims this was impossible and clearly demonstrates a controlled demolition brought down the WTC, saying “Let’s see them (the government) try to wiggle out of this one.”

So I looked up controlled demolition on Google. Amazingly enough, I found a company called “Controlled Demolition”. They seem to be a top-notch outfit, and they have well-written and informative articles on all the buildings they’ve demolished. The following link deals with the demolition of Hudson’s Department Store in Detroit.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqMode=1&reqLocId;=7&reqItemId;=20030225133807

Here are some numbers from that article:

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

It took 2,728 pounds of explosives to bring down a department store. I don’t know how many pounds of exlosives it would take to bring down the WTC, but I’m guessing it would have to be a lot. So, Mr. Aremyfriend, please explain how the Shadow Bankers managed to do all the drilling and placing explosives and running detcord and placing delay devices without anyone seeing them.

This has been an extremely interesting conversation.  I feel real sorry for people like Diamonds, as they seem to have nothing else in their lives beyond the total and unswerving belief that everyone is out to get them.

Diamonds, you mentioned that you are working furiously to get out of this evil country.  It really isn’t all that difficult to relocate.  People do it all the time.  Are you waiting until you are old enough to move out of your parents house?  Anyway, Godspeed and good luck finding a new home.

Meanwhile, you may want to read this.  It might give you a realsitic idea of just how many people would have to be quiet to make this conspiracy work.

Enjoy and, seriously, get some help.

So, Mr. Aremyfriend, please explain how the Shadow Bankers managed to do all the drilling and placing explosives and running detcord and placing delay devices without anyone seeing them.

Easy, Belcatar.  They were built into the towers as they were constructed. 

You would be amazed how far into the future the Tri-Lateral Commission has planned!

Ok so the government keeps this janitor alive, and tells him to shut up, but then everyone knows he knows something but has to keep his mouth shut...does anyone know how stupid that sounds?

And I love how Diamonds tried to bring Iraq into this to change the topic. First there were WMD’s found in Iraq, Iraq did have them, and moved them to Syria. That 50% who believe that are the 50% who do their homework and know the truth, and not just the spoonfed Bush Lied Kids Died Moonbat crap. Also there is evidence of a link between Al Quida and Iraq, and Bush never EVER said that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 anyways, to think he did thats just another lie from Howard Deans DNCMoonbase. An Iraq, Al Quida, OBL, connection started way back in the Clinton days.

LOL you people are so stupids! Ive been reading this debate since it started, and you should all listen to diamons are my friend. He knows what is he talking about? Look at the stuff that ‘wiserbud’ posted. Does that guy think we are dump? Those pictures clearly show a bunch of jews scattering parts of an airplane on the pentagon lawn so that when the missile hits they can say its a plain also the picures show wheels. Do they think were to stupid to know the different of cruise missiles wheels and plain wheels. that ‘airline insignia’. Ha! it’s a ‘C’. ‘C’ for cruise missle, think about it. I used to be like you. It will take awhile for you to understand. Also diamonsaremyfriend is a much better righter and arguer. I no about righting because I am a janitor and that makes me an expert in wrighting. Im going to laugh at all of you when Bush=Hitler suspends the 18th amendment and you all die and I’ll be in france...maybe Canada...or my moms friend chet’s...depends on how much gas money I can save!...lololo! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! THESE ARE SCARY TIMES FOR AMERCIA!!!

When you come to MooreWatch, you learn stuff.  I guess what I learned from all this is that there are more people out there who believe what they want to hear than I ever suspected.  This particular conspiracy theory is really quite interesting in that there are so many folks who seem eager buy into it.  Bundy made a comment about this calling it sad.  And sadly I agree.

Still, it is quite a mind trip to hear the array of rationalizations, logical fallacies, wishful thinking, willful disinformation, and twisted distortions coming from people who are supposed to be brightest among us.  I guess I just don’t get it and never will.

Then there’s all that stuff on the Internet about this conspiracy.  The article Diamonds posted about the janitor is a perfect example of how to imply something without saying anything.  It’s just meaningless . . . it goes nowhere . . . much like this whole conspiracy theory.  But it’s only meaningless to people who are rational.  And I’m beginning to wonder what percentage of the population that includes.

including some firefighters and EMS workers who spoke (some of whom could hardy speak as their lungs are now next to worthless). Several people that work for the Pentagon have come forward.

But...but....but...wait a minute!  Shouldn’t these people be dead?  I mean, seriously, how can they all still be alive?  Where are the covert Government hit squads that built this whole conspiracy?  How can they allow these people to ruin all of the difficult and expensive work that they did?

I’m sorry, but this is all not making any sense anymore.

Doesn’t the total incompetence of these conspirators bother anyone?  They obviously have no problems with murdering thousands of people with an astronomically intricate and expensive plot, yet they drop the ball on the silencing of these loudmouths who will ruin the whole thing.

Typical.  I am constantly disappointed by the complete ineptitude of the people we entrust with management of these schemes.

I’m skeptical Diamonds. You’ve never responded to anybody in the past. Why would you start now?

Are you sure it wasn’t the fact that Saddam had been in violation of a dozen UN resolutions for a decade, was firing at UN inspectors and US and British aircraft daily, was illegally holding foreign prisoners, had pits the size of football fields full of dead children in his country, sprayed nerve gas on his own people, tried to kill a former US president and supported international terrorist organizations that prompted the invasion?

obvious huge explosions happening like fireworks 2, 4, 8, 10 floors apart. Without obstruction.

So wait. Now you’re saying that the building was “pulled” using roman candles? Why is it again that this building had to be destroyed?

F$ck! Well that blew up in my face. I forgot to log back in as myself.

Doesn’t the total incompetence of these conspirators bother anyone?

Yes it does.  If they can’t even pull this one off without being exposed by a janitor, how the hell are they going to achieve global domination?  They just barely managed to steal 2 elections.  And to think, I really believed Bill Kristol, the Chairman of the New American Century and Fox News commentator, was better than this!

Epoch Flux made a good point earlier in this discussion regarding academic freedom at BYU.  I wonder how others feel about Steven Jones being put on paid leave while his fate is being considered by the BYU administration?  Is this going to far?  Should a faculty member of an academic institution be allowed to promote his/her theories on subjects like 9/11, no matter how lame they may be?  In other words, how far should academic freedom extend?

when does indoctrination become an academic standard.

Freedom of speech has become grossly misused and misinterpreted.  Anyone can say what they want, but they are never guaranteed a platform on or medium through which to say it.

But iggy, aren’t institutions of higher learning suppose to allow people to persue the truth without unwarranted interference?  As long as Jones has made it clear that he does not represent the university here, shouldn’t he be able to express his opinions in public without fear of being censored by the unversity?

I’m just playing devil’s advocate here.

ive always hated that approach....  as long as the subject is that of dissent or liberal ideology, its ‘freedom of speech’; change the subject to religion or conservatism, its indoctrination.....